I have never ever met a pro "gay marriage" pro life person

[Kevin_B]

Marriage is a lifelong commitment between two people who love each other. They agree to support each other and care for one another. The race, gender, or religious affiliation of the participants is irrelevant to the meaning of the ceremony.

Natural law is easy. It’s the bit inside you which tells your gut something is wrong. Many serial killers, for instance, got a thrill for doing something they know is wrong. Since homosexuals, deep down, are created by God to be attracted to someone of their own gender, it would go against natural law for them to mate with someone if the opposite gender.

If you need a bible to determine if something is wrong, then it doesn’t violate natural law.

 

[Rau]

Part A: Marriage is a lifelong commitment between two people who love each other. They agree to support each other and care for one another.

Part B: The race of the participants is irrelevant to the meaning of the ceremony.

Part C: The religious affiliation of the participants is irrelevant to the meaning of the ceremony.

Part D: The gender of the participants is irrelevant to the meaning of the ceremony.

Natural law is easy. It’s the bit inside you which tells your gut something is wrong. Many serial killers, for instance, got a thrill for doing something they know is wrong. Since homosexuals, deep down, are created by God to be attracted to someone of their own gender, it would go against natural law for them to mate with someone if the opposite gender.

If you need a bible to determine if something is wrong, then it doesn’t violate natural law.

Marriage

I’ve decomposed your definition of “marriage” for discussion purposes… And for sake of discussion, I think we are discussing the meaning of the **civil **institution of marriage, rather than a religious institution.

With that said…if the above is your definition of Marriage, then you must support “SSM” since in that definition, the sex of the participants does not matter. However, I would argue that this is a “new” definition - and ***not the one the world has generally *understood for centuries. I make that statement regardless of whether one considers the religious or civil institution.

I would like to think that all marriages include the factors you listed in Part A. I agree with Parts B and C.

For centuries, **Marriage **was also understood to be:

• an inherently sexual relationship;
• and as a consequence, one which builds family units, and hence, the society.

It is the last point that behoved States to take considerable interest in Marriage.

I note that these points don’t feature in your definition, though I think they are most significant, especially to the State. Given that, it seems to me that Marriage (between Man + Woman) is a unique institution and should not be confused with other civil institutions that the State may see good reason to facilitate. [Eg. An institution as you describe - where the sex of the participants is irrelevant, may well be justified - to give effect to the care and support objectives you nominated.]

Natural Law and Homosexuality

I’ve not heard Natural Law described that way - can you point to any sources for this definition? The best known formulation of Natural Law comes from Aquinas. He relates Natural Inclinations to the precepts of Natural Law, eg:

(1) natural inclination for the good ⇒ “do good, shun evil”
(2) natural inclination for the preservation of life ⇒ those means which help to preserve life belong to natural law. [E.g. “do not kill,” “live healthily,” etc.]
(3) natural inclination for the preservation of the species, i.e. for generating ⇒ matters regarding sexuality and education belong to the natural law. [E.g. “do not commit adultery”]
(4) natural inclination to know the truth ⇒ precepts such as “shun ignorance” [or do not lie]
(5) natural inclination to live in society ⇒ precepts such as “do not offend anyone” [and generally the precepts of justice, e.g. “don’t take the goods of another.”]

It is faulty reasoning - and not founded in Natural Law - to think that **satisfying desires **is ordained by Natural Law - often this will run counter to Natural Law.

The natural - *complementary *- sexual partner for a man is a woman. Evidence for this lies in their physical bodies, their capacity to mate and the complementary that enables the making of a child. We know this intuitively. Yet - for some persons, and this is likely to be a great source of sorrow - their desires run counter to this knowledge.

The cause of homosexuality is unknown. Whether or not there is a genetic pre-disposition, a development factor prevalent (say) in the womb, or some other later-developing psychological factor really makes no difference to how homosexual acts ought be viewed.

 

[Kevin_B]

Marriage

I’ve decomposed your definition of “marriage” for discussion purposes… And for sake of discussion, I think we are discussing the meaning of the **civil **institution of marriage, rather than a religious institution.

Thanks for the clarification. So many Christians don’t understand that there is a difference. There is a religious sacrament called Marriage, which the Church has complete control over, and a legal contract called marriage, which the Church should have no opinion over since it is not a matter of faith. I actually defined the religious definition of marriage (since I support both religious and civil same-sex marriages) but will make sure to stick to just legal ones, since those are easier to defend anyhow.

With that said…if the above is your definition of Marriage, then you must support “SSM” since in that definition, the sex of the participants does not matter. However, I would argue that this is a “new” definition - and ***not the one the world has generally ***understood for centuries. I make that statement regardless of whether one considers the religious or civil institution.

Of course it is a new definition.

com·put·er
[kuhm-pyoo-ter] Show IPA
noun
1.
Also called processor. an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribedmathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations.Compare analog computer, digital computer.
2.
a person who computes; computist.

The 1st one of these is also a “new” definition of this word, yet you use it every day. Therefore, I submit the argument that “new ≠ lesser”. The length of time a definition has been around is in no way indicative of its significance or validity. Feel free to argue this point if you want to, but remember that the idea that “slavery = bad” is only about a few hundred years old, while humans have been using slaves for millennia. So if you want to prove that older always equals better, then you’re basically arguing that slavery is a good thing.

I would like to think that all marriages include the factors you listed in Part A. I agree with Parts B and C.

If you are going to make a separate ceremony for part D, then I see no reason not to make separate ceremonies for parts C and D. Love is love. If your gender makes your love somehow different, then your race, or creed, or age should, too.

If you’re using “build family units” as a condition for state marriage that’s fine too, but you better make sure that sterile couples and couples who do not intend on having children are unable to get married.

You still have given no logical reasoning that sterile couples or interracial couples should be allowed to get married by the state but not same-sex couples.

Besides, you are arguing for two “separate but equal” ceremonies, and the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that “Separate but equal” is unconstitutional.

Natural Law and Homosexuality

I’ve not heard Natural Law described that way - can you point to any sources for this definition? The best known formulation of Natural Law comes from Aquinas. He relates Natural Inclinations to the precepts of Natural Law
…

It is faulty reasoning - and not founded in Natural Law - to think that **satisfying desires **is ordained by Natural Law - often this will run counter to Natural Law.

…

The natural - *complementary *- sexual partner for a man is a woman. Evidence for this lies in their physical bodies, their capacity to mate and the complementary that enables the making of a child. We know this intuitively. Yet - for some persons, and this is likely to be a great source of sorrow - their desires run counter to this knowledge.

The cause of homosexuality is unknown. Whether or not there is a genetic pre-disposition, a development factor prevalent (say) in the womb, or some other later-developing psychological factor really makes no difference to how homosexual acts ought be viewed.

I was just giving my spin on it. I was trying to explain your “natural inclination for good”.

(Off-topic, but I would love for you to explain how “do not commit adultery” helps preserve the species. A male having sex with multiple partners will certainly produce more offspring)

I also disagree that we know, intuitively, that the natural mate for a male is a female. I think YOU know intuitively that YOUR natural mate is a female, and project your own desires on everyone else. But homosexualis “intuitively know” that their natural mate is someone of their own gender. So strike 1 right there.

Strike 2: Everything has a reason. Perhaps God gave them homosexual desires for a reason. Perhaps He wants them to marry and not have children so they can raise children from other couples who otherwise may have had an abortion.

Strike 3: nowhere did you explain how homosexual acts should be viewed. You said that satisfying desires does not always coincide with natural law (with which I wholeheartedly agree), but you never explained this exact case. How does two homosexuals having sex going against natural law? Of course, it stunts the reproduction of the species, but so does mating for life. If our only goal is to spit out as many children as possible we would outlaw homosexuality and encourage adultery.

 

[Rau]

On Marriage:

There is a religious sacrament called Marriage, which the Church has complete control over, and a legal contract called marriage, which the Church should have no opinion over since it is not a matter of faith. I actually defined the religious definition of marriage (since I support both religious and civil same-sex marriages) but will make sure to stick to just legal ones, since those are easier to defend anyhow.

I suggest the Church has the same right to a voice as does anyone else on any secular matter. We don’t shut down people’s right to hold an opinion or to express it. The Church has good reason to be concerned about matters that affect the family. While I would oppose Churchmen clamouring for legislation to reflect its moral principles (say: to ban sale of contraceptives), I support the Church’s right to express its opinion about matters of faith and morality. I think the re-defining of the term Marriage - upon which Church and State have historically held a common view on its essential nature - is such an matter.

You say your definition covered the religious definition of marriage. This may be true in respect of “some” particular religions I suppose - is that what you mean? Clearly you’ve not defined Catholic Marriage.

… I submit the argument that “new ≠ lesser”. The length of time a definition has been around is in no way indicative of its significance or validity.

I did not suggest “lesser” - only “new”. Some pro-SSM advocates reject the notion that they seek a **change **to the meaning of the institution. Definitions are not like theories or analyses that can or need to be proven. They are simply what we’ve agreed to accept. Definitions can be changed, by the appropriate process, and for a matter of wide interest and importance, in a democracy, everyone gets a say.

If you are going to make a separate ceremony for part D, then I see no reason not to make separate ceremonies for parts C and D. Love is love. If your gender makes your love somehow different, then your race, or creed, or age should, too.

No - you misunderstand, the “parts” are only listed to aid reference to the components of your definition. I argue that the institution of Marriage - “Man + Woman” - is simply unique. The relationship it recognises is not sufficiently defined by the presence of “Love”. I agree Race is irrelevant. I agree Religious beliefs are irrelevant. But gender is wholly relevant. Marriage is inherently a sexual relationship. Two men, two women cannot “mate” (unless that word is also redefined). They cannot produce offspring - despite the will and perfect health of the couple.

The institution of Marriage - and an institution appropriate for a same sex couple are like apples and oranges. The term “equal” is not a relevant word in the discussion - the only relevant comparator is “different”.

The idea that a sterile couple is like SSM is often raised. Presonally, I find it bizarre to imagine that the meaning of Marriage (as heterosexual) ought (as some kind of logical consequence) to oblige the State to check on the intent and sterility of the partners prior to issuing a marriage licence. One wonders how such a ‘check’ would serve the State’s interest at all? The State may as well require that couple’s divorce upon the woman reaching menopause! The State has no desire or interest to intrude so dramatically into people’s life - but the State does have an interest in differentially recognising** the class of relationships in society which are central to the continuance of the society.**

 

[Rau]

I also disagree that we know, intuitively, that the natural mate for a male is a female. I think YOU know intuitively that YOUR natural mate is a female, and project your own **desires **on everyone else. But homosexualis “intuitively know” that their natural mate is someone of their own gender. So strike 1 right there.

Perhaps we understand “mate” differently? Desires are not central to this issue as I remarked in the prior post about Natural Law. Two men may have a great deal of affection for each other; they may love each other. Two men (feeling so inclined) may engage in acts that bring each other sexual satisfaction, and they may derive pleasure both from their own pleasure and from the fact of having contributed to the other’s pleasure. But the contradiction between the act and their very own bodies is profoundly obvious. Compare the nature of “mating” when opposite sexes come together and when the same sexes come together - does one of these cases look to be “how it’s supposed to be”? Why does the male body produce sperm - a fluid whose only purpose is well understood? Why does the female climax drawn fluid toward the cervix?

I do not deny for a second the very real same sex attraction that a homosexually inclined person experiences. I have compassion for the trial this must present to many.

Everything has a reason. Perhaps God gave them homosexual desires for a reason. Perhaps He wants them to marry and not have children so they can raise children from other couples who otherwise may have had an abortion.

Does everything have a reason? I don’t know - I don’t view God as a puppeteer. Do you look for deep meaning in all world events? Did God want the Kennedy brothers dead? Does God want bank robbers to do their stuff to keep the police on their toes? Does God want paedophiles harming children? Cutting back on abortions is a nice thought - but the facts suggest that the availability of adoptive parents is not a factor - The number of abortions in the USA is vast, yet parents desiring to adopt can rarely secure a baby in the US!

Nowhere did you explain how homosexual acts should be viewed. You said that satisfying desires does not always coincide with natural law (with which I wholeheartedly agree), but you never explained this exact case. How does two homosexuals having sex going against natural law? Of course, it stunts the reproduction of the species, but so does mating for life. If our only goal is to spit out as many children as possible we would outlaw homosexuality and encourage adultery.

I think I’d repeat myself to respond to the first part of this point. I could add that it was you who said that homosexual sex was (positively) in accordance with Natural Law - I think that is factually wrong by any accepted objective understanding of “Natural Law”. Mating for life (or for a good chunk of the ‘productive’ years) is rather a good thing for the children. It is also (generally) good for the well-being of the couple. We generally don’t handle well feeling used and abandoned!

 

[Cirdan_XII]

I am for gay marriage and pro life. I also have a baby. There are more out there. Please do not stereotype.

I don’t believe the Church should offer gay marriage, but if the state does, that is neither here nor there to me. After all, why should I push my beliefs on others? If somebody wants to be a polygamist, or marry somebody of the same sex, i don’t see an issue as long as they don’t draw me into it.

In fact I would venture to suggest that the state cease to offer marriages at all and make it a matter of private contract, rather like buying a house or drawing up a will. If two adults wish to consent to something that does no harm to any others, why should they seek the approval of the state for the same?

But abortion is different. What two consenting adults do is fine as long as both consent to what they’re doing. As far as I’m concerned somebody should be allowed to be another’s slave if he so wishes of his own free will, or be killed by another if he so wishes of his own free will (and is of sound mind and has not been blackmailed or threatened). But if you kill a baby, obviously the party most affected is not consenting and therefore it’s a no go.

 

[markomalley]

I don’t believe the Church should offer gay marriage, but if the state does, that is neither here nor there to me. After all, why should I push my beliefs on others? If somebody wants to be a polygamist, or marry somebody of the same sex, i don’t see an issue as long as they don’t draw me into it.

If it was that simple, that would be one thing. But what is desired is for the rest of society to accept, if not fully endorse it. Anybody who won’t do so is labeled a “hater”.

If it was a matter of them not wanting to push themselves on us and, in exchange, us not leaving them alone, we would be looking at a completely different situation than we are.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

If it was that simple, that would be one thing. But what is desired is for the rest of society to accept, if not fully endorse it. Anybody who won’t do so is labeled a “hater”.

If it was a matter of them not wanting to push themselves on us and, in exchange, us not leaving them alone, we would be looking at a completely different situation than we are.

I agree absolutely.

But I think people fighting this corner have been so hard pressed by their opponents that they’re failing to make this distinction, or are at least failing to explain it properly.

 

[Kevin_B]

I suggest the Church has the same right to a voice as does anyone else on any secular matter.

I think the re-defining of the term Marriage - which Church and State have historically held a common view on its essential nature - is such an matter.

They are not redefining the word marriage.
The are redefining SOME marriages. Notably, only marriages performed by justices of the peace. Which have 0 concern for the Catholic religion. No Catholic or any other religions definition of marriage will change.
The two events have almost nothing in common, yet you claim they are very similar.
In the Church, one member must be Catholic, they must agree to live by Catholic Teachings, to remained married forever, etc.
In the Justice of the Peace’s office, they sign a document stating they have certain legal rights. Period, the end. No love is required. No length of time is required. Having children is not requested nor required.
They are two events that have almost nothing in common, except that both involve two people and they happen to have the same name, and you’re saying that gives the Church authority in this matter? So if buying a car was called “marriage”, would they have authority over it as well?

Of course the Church can say “we don;t think same-sex marriage should be legal”, but they need to make it clear that this is just their opinion, not Church Doctrine, and they have not done so

No - you misunderstand, the “parts” are only listed to aid reference to the components of your definition. I argue that the institution of Marriage - “Man + Woman” - is simply unique
. …
Two men, two women cannot “mate” (unless that word is also redefined). They cannot produce offspring - despite the will and perfect health of the couple.

Two homosexual men can mate just as well as a sterile heterosexual couple. I don’t understand why you keep giving exceptions for some people who can’t mate but not others.

The idea that a sterile couple is like SSM is often raised. Presonally, I find it bizarre to imagine that the meaning of Marriage (as heterosexual) ought (as some kind of logical consequence) to oblige the State to check on the intent and sterility of the partners prior to issuing a marriage licence. One wonders how such a ‘check’ would serve the State’s interest at all? The State may as well require that couple’s divorce upon the woman reaching menopause! The State has no desire or interest to intrude so dramatically into people’s life - but the State does have an interest in differentially recognising** the class of relationships in society which are central to the continuance of the society.**

What? The State has no interest in determining if people can mate, but they have an interest in determining if they can mate? That doesn’t make any sense.

All you have shown is that it is harder to prove that a sterile heterosexual couple cannot mate than it is to prove a homosexual couple cannot mate. You still have not shown how there is any difference between the two. Either:
A) marriage is about mating, and neither is eligible, or
B) marriage is not about mating, and both are
The difficulty in determining who is or is not eligible is irrelevant to the discussion.

…
Cutting back on abortions is a nice thought - but the facts suggest that the availability of adoptive parents is not a factor - The number of abortions in the USA is vast, yet parents desiring to adopt can rarely secure a baby in the US!

Actually, that’s not exactly true. It takes a long time if you want to adopt a baby immediately after birth. But if you don’t care what age the baby is you want to adopt, you could have a foster child after only 12 hours training, and adopt them. There are over 104,000 children in foster care right now waiting to be adopted. The problem isn’t a lack of babies, the problem is a lack of babies the adopters want. Most people adopting don’t want special needs or nonwhite babies, and most don’t want to adopt a child older than a newborn. Maybe if we increase the amount of married couples we can cut back on the number of orphaned children who need homes. It’s completely possible that God want’s same-sex marriage to be legal, and the Church is unknowingly fighting Him!
(I believe the show South Park enacted that same scenario with Terri Schiavo, where for whatever reason God wanted her in heaven and tried to get people to let her go while the Devil wanted her alive and kept trying to get people to keep her that way)

If it was that simple, that would be one thing. But what is desired is for the rest of society to accept, if not fully endorse it. Anybody who won’t do so is labeled a “hater”.

If it was a matter of them not wanting to push themselves on us and, in exchange, us not leaving them alone, we would be looking at a completely different situation than we are.

Are you honestly telling me that if homosexuals wanted the right to get married and didn’t make a big deal out of it, the Church would readily agree? Don’t make me laugh.
Also, how comer the Church can express its opinion that homosexuality is immoral, but homosexuals can’t express their opinion that it isn’t?

 

[Rau]

Of course the Church can say “we don;t think same-sex marriage should be legal”, but they need to make it clear that this is just their opinion, not Church Doctrine, and they have not done so.

As agreed, we are only discussing the civil institution of marriage. The Church has no doctrine pertaining to what is/is not legal. Church doctrine stands in opposition to many things - but two men wishing to enter into a legal contract which facilitates their mutual care and support is **NOT **one of them. However, this is not what is commonly understood by SSM. In fact, such an arrangement (facilitating mutual care and support) was proposed in an area in the USA, with support of the Catholic Church, but was rejected by homosexual groups. The latter required that it be called Marriage and was understood to be just the same.

Two homosexual men can mate just as well as a sterile heterosexual couple. I don’t understand why you keep giving exceptions for some people who can’t mate but not others.

If I hand you a Nut and ask for the **mating **component, do you search for a bolt, or another nut? If 2 **perfectly healthy & fertile men **can mate - why is it still certain that no offspring be produced? I think you are distorting meanings as required to maintain support for the premise that a “same sex marriage” is “Marriage”.

What? The State has no interest in determining if people can mate, but they have an interest in determining if they can mate? That doesn’t make any sense.

The State has an interest in differentially recognising the class of relationships in society which are central to the continuance of the society. Only Man + Woman can mate - it is inherent to their complementary design, and they can do so if sterile.

There are over 104,000 children in foster care right now waiting to be adopted. The problem isn’t a lack of babies, the problem is a lack of babies the adopters want. Most people adopting don’t want special needs or nonwhite babies, and most don’t want to adopt a child older than a newborn. Maybe if we increase the amount of married couples we can cut back on the number of orphaned children who need homes. It’s completely possible that God want’s same-sex marriage to be legal, and the Church is unknowingly fighting Him!

The number of abortions - in one year!! - is vastly larger than 104,000. Your assertion was that fewer would be aborted if there were more parents seeking to adopt. Parents would love to adopt healthy babies - you aren’t suggesting there is something seriously wrong with the bulk of aborted babies are you? And if that is the case, how would still more adoptive parents make any difference?

You are speculating (somewhat wildly IMHO) about God’s intent.

 

[vsedriver]

so you have no objections to a brother and sister marrying. How about two sisters getting married? And why are you limiting it to 2 people? what if 3 people love each other? why can’t they get married?

Natural law is easy. It’s the bit inside you which tells your gut something is wrong. Many serial killers, for instance, got a thrill for doing something they know is wrong. Since homosexuals, deep down, are created by God to be attracted to someone of their own gender, it would go against natural law for them to mate with someone if the opposite gender.

Since pedophiles, deep down, are created by God to be attracted to children then it would be against natural law for them to mate with an adult. Your logic is a bit faulty. Not to mention that homosexuals can’t mate. It’s biologically impossible.

If you need a bible to determine if something is wrong, then it doesn’t violate natural law.

let me guess, you have no idea what natural law is do you?

 

[vsedriver]

If two adults wish to consent to something that does no harm to any others, why should they seek the approval of the state for the same?

.

but you see SSM isn’t just between the two people getting married. If the State says SSM is the same as hetero marriage than in the case of adoptions both must be treated equally. But they are not equal to the child. The child has a biological right to experiencing a mother and a father. Placing a child in a SSM denies the child one of these parents.

 

[vsedriver]

If you’re using “build family units” as a condition for state marriage that’s fine too, but you better make sure that sterile couples and couples who do not intend on having children are unable to get married.

 

[vsedriver]

Two homosexual men can mate just as well as a sterile heterosexual couple. I don’t understand why you keep giving exceptions for some people who can’t mate but not others.

no they can’t. two homosexual men are sterile by nature. A sterile heterosexual couple is sterile by accident or design.

When something doesn’t work the way it is supposed to it is not considered ‘natural’. If you can’t see then you have broken eyes. If you can’t reproduce then you have broken sex organs. But two fertile males can’t mate with each other. They can sexually please each other but that is not mating. They lack the proper organs.

What? The State has no interest in determining if people can mate, but they have an interest in determining if they can mate? That doesn’t make any sense.

The state should have an interest in providing what is best for children. If a child loses their parents they should get replacement parents… one of each gender, just the way nature made them.

All you have shown is that it is harder to prove that a sterile heterosexual couple cannot mate than it is to prove a homosexual couple cannot mate. You still have not shown how there is any difference between the two. Either:
A) marriage is about mating, and neither is eligible, or
B) marriage is not about mating, and both are
The difficulty in determining who is or is not eligible is irrelevant to the discussion.

I think I just did. two men will never be mommy and daddy. nature won’t make them that way and neither will science. again a sterile couple can still be mommy and daddy.

Actually, that’s not exactly true. It takes a long time if you want to adopt a baby immediately after birth. But if you don’t care what age the baby is you want to adopt, you could have a foster child after only 12 hours training, and adopt them

.

not true. I have a brother and his wife who have been foster parents for years. They take the hard cases and they were turned down for adoption. Foster parents are highly regulated.

There are over 104,000 children in foster care right now waiting to be adopted

.

And the state makes it very hard for you to adopt them. After all, foster systems wouldn’t make much money if there were no kids in the foster system.

The problem isn’t a lack of babies, the problem is a lack of babies the adopters want. Most people adopting don’t want special needs or nonwhite babies, and most don’t want to adopt a child older than a newborn. Maybe if we increase the amount of married couples we can cut back on the number of orphaned children who need homes. It’s completely possible that God want’s same-sex marriage to be legal, and the Church is unknowingly fighting Him!
(I believe the show South Park enacted that same scenario with Terri Schiavo, where for whatever reason God wanted her in heaven and tried to get people to let her go while the Devil wanted her alive and kept trying to get people to keep her that way)

Are you honestly telling me that if homosexuals wanted the right to get married and didn’t make a big deal out of it, the Church would readily agree? Don’t make me laugh.
Also, how comer the Church can express its opinion that homosexuality is immoral, but homosexuals can’t express their opinion that it isn’t?

 

[markomalley]

Are you honestly telling me that if homosexuals wanted the right to get married and didn’t make a big deal out of it, the Church would readily agree? Don’t make me laugh.
Also, how comer the Church can express its opinion that homosexuality is immoral, but homosexuals can’t express their opinion that it isn’t?

Perhaps you should learn to not laugh so readily. Also, are your glasses OK? Its patently apparent that you didn’t read what I wrote.

Just to reiterate, what I wrote was: If it was a matter of them not wanting to push themselves on us and, in exchange, us not leaving them alone, we would be looking at a completely different situation than we are.

I don’t seem to see the Church mentioned in that statement at all. Frankly, I don’t see it inferred in that statement either.

Oh, and while you’re at it, you might want to research the difference between “tolerate” and “accept.” You might want to research the meaning of the word “endorse” while you’re at it. That might help you comprehend what I said a bit better.

 

[christopher_r]

I **almost **agree with your remark about the lack of a **secular **argument against same sex marriage.

First - SS’M’ is not so much banned as the law holds the participants need to meet eligibility criteria (though I admit this interpretation may not apply in every jurisdiction). The eligibility criteria is that the participants be of an appropriate age, unmarried, sufficiently unrelated and 2 in number, viz: 1 x Man + 1 x Woman.

Second - I would not stand in the way of the State defining an institution / legal framework that met the reasonable needs of a same-sex couple and delivered benefits in proportion to those needs and to the value the State reaps from the relationship. However, the institution cannot be called Marriage, because that word defines the unique institution we already have.

Well if we read the bible, the marriage in the Old Testament was a bit different than the unique marriage criteria that you quote. Abraham, David, Solomon all had more than one wife. Clearly, David got one very inappropriately. Solomon was called Wise.

Our conceptions of marriage have had several definitions.

Peace and Love

 

[vsedriver]

Two homosexual men can mate just as well as a sterile heterosexual couple. I don’t understand why you keep giving exceptions for some people who can’t mate but not others.

no they can’t. two homosexual men are sterile by nature. A sterile heterosexual couple is sterile by accident or design.

When something doesn’t work the way it is supposed to it is not considered ‘natural’. If you can’t see then you have broken eyes. That’s not natural even if you are born that way. If you can’t reproduce then you have broken sex organs. But two fertile males can’t mate with each other. They can sexually please each other but that is not mating. They lack the proper organs.

What? The State has no interest in determining if people can mate, but they have an interest in determining if they can mate? That doesn’t make any sense.

The state should have an interest in providing what is best for children. If a child loses their parents they should get replacement parents… one of each gender, just the way nature made them.

All you have shown is that it is harder to prove that a sterile heterosexual couple cannot mate than it is to prove a homosexual couple cannot mate. You still have not shown how there is any difference between the two. Either:
A) marriage is about mating, and neither is eligible, or
B) marriage is not about mating, and both are
The difficulty in determining who is or is not eligible is irrelevant to the discussion.

I think I just did. two men will never be mommy and daddy. nature won’t make them that way and neither will science. again a sterile couple can still be mommy and daddy.

Actually, that’s not exactly true. It takes a long time if you want to adopt a baby immediately after birth. But if you don’t care what age the baby is you want to adopt, you could have a foster child after only 12 hours training, and adopt them

.

not true. I have a brother and his wife who have been foster parents for years. They take the hard cases and they were turned down for adoption. Foster parents are highly regulated.

There are over 104,000 children in foster care right now waiting to be adopted

.

And the state makes it very hard for you to adopt them. After all, foster systems wouldn’t make much money if there were no kids in the foster system.

The problem isn’t a lack of babies, the problem is a lack of babies the adopters want.

That’s not true either.

Most people adopting don’t want special needs or nonwhite babies, and most don’t want to adopt a child older than a newborn.

Sadly, it is often not economical to adopt special needs. Not everyone is rich enough to accept the cost unless by accident of birth. but many couples adopt nonwhite babies. Look at how many go overseas to get a baby.

Maybe if we increase the amount of married couples we can cut back on the number of orphaned children who need homes.

Then why do gay couples also want to adopt infants? I actually have no objection to gays or singles adopting hard to adopt children.

It’s completely possible that God want’s same-sex marriage to be legal, and the Church is unknowingly fighting Him!

That’s like saying God is fighting himself.

(I believe the show South Park enacted that same scenario with Terri Schiavo, where for whatever reason God wanted her in heaven and tried to get people to let her go while the Devil wanted her alive and kept trying to get people to keep her that way)

right, let’s kill people because they will be happier in heaven. Either all human life is sacred or no one’s is.
.

Also, how comer the Church can express its opinion that homosexuality is immoral, but homosexuals can’t express their opinion that it isn’t

it is not an opinion it is moral teaching. The church is not stopping homosexuals from expressing their opinion. The church is just pointing out that their opinion is wrong. That’s the church’s job.

 

[vsedriver]

Well if we read the bible, the marriage in the Old Testament was a bit different than the unique marriage criteria that you quote. Abraham, David, Solomon all had more than one wife. Clearly, David got one very inappropriately. Solomon was called Wise.

Our conceptions of marriage have had several definitions.

Peace and Love

Uh, no they didn’t. They had one wife and a lot of consorts.

 

[Rau]

Well if we read the bible, the marriage in the Old Testament was a bit different than the unique marriage criteria that you quote. Abraham, David, Solomon all had more than one wife. Clearly, David got one very inappropriately. Solomon was called Wise.

Our conceptions of marriage have had several definitions.

Peace and Love

Was polygamy provided for in the law of Marriage in those days?

Of course, it is in some locations today.

Whatever the answer, I don’t think this much changes the debate. That the law can be changed is not in dispute.

 

[TK421]

Until I became Catholic, I was extremely pro-life and extremely pro-SS’M.’ Stereotyping usually doesn’t turn out so well. The difference is that it is a lot easier to play to someone’s natural concern for human life (abortion) than it is to discuss an issue that really has no secular basis or defense behind it (banning SS’M’).

Hi SMG,

I would read “In Defense of Marriage” for an explanation for why SSM is and will be a bad thing, although I admit decrying abortion is probably more emotionally intuitive than decrying SSM. It also covers topics such as why infertile heterosexual couples are still acceptable, and why banning SSM is not at all analogous to the banning of interracial marriages from the past. I found the book persuasive.

SSM is a very difficult contemporary issue to tackle, because you can’t properly defend why it’s a bad thing without forcing people to acknowledge a few other things as well. Even among heterosexual marriage, much of the population is running with an incomplete understanding of what marriage is even suppose to be, so how do you tell these same people why SSM is a bad thing? It’s tough.